Doesn't it seem like you might eventually overcome insanity, though? Or at least phase in and out as time passes.

I don't think so. If my issue is not being able to escape life no matter how badly I wanted to, methinks it'd only get worse as time goes on.

I'm with the notion about not knowing what death really is. Then there is the subject of existentialism where knowledge can only go so far as knowing the existence of life. A big reason where made up stories of hell and heaven, reincarnation, nirvana and the even the notion of God knows all because beyond here is really lost to us, so all of them can be credible in a way.

"Nothing" doesn't exist, because "nothing" can't be analysed.

There is no truth, everything is permitted.

With the exception of a couple of posts, reading this thread has given me a very clear idea of what infinite repetition feels like ...

No, I think it would suck. Too frustrating, due to seeing too many bad things, including negative human behaviors repeated over and over and humanity hardly improving morally.

But after eons, surely you'd witness other species besides humanity come and go.

So I'm guessing you're not enjoying your life at the moment either?

How optimistic. Think about all the wonderful things you would see. I think that you would notice quite a change a change in human behaviour, think about what it was like in the 1940's. Children had to be seen and not heard. Not anymore. What about the early 1900's? Women weren't even allowed to vote! Loads of changes and differences would happen. One of the most significant things in history has happened little over 100 years ago, so imagine what is possible in the next 100-200 years. Then there is the progression of technology and medicine, what if there is a cancer cure a little over the hill? You just have to be immortal to witness it :).

Living forever would be peculiar if nothing else. In 5 billion years or so the Sun is set to balloon, killing the Earth, later the Andromeda galaxy is predicted to collide with the Milky Way, and so an immortal could well spend the rest of time floating through space. That could be quite interesting, but it's also been predicted that all matter in the universe will break down and be converted into energy and that eventually all light will die too leaving nothing but a cold and dead universe.

Could well be. Who knows. Reminds me of the Buddhist koans: 'what was your original face before your mother and father were born?' and 'where does the master of my being go when I die?' Ponder. Ponder.

I believe there are universal morals/beliefs that most people share, regardless of culture, religion, or upbringing. Just normal human decencies that most people share. Based of these, and your opinions, he's my question.

You have two people. One with the urge to commit a "wrong", yet refrains from such an action. The other has no such urge and therefore commits no transgression.

Example - Two priests. One is attracted to young men. One is not. Neither ever engages in such activity. The priest who has no interests/desires has an easier road. The priest with the desires uses every bit of his willpower to refrain. Who's better in you eyes/ God's eyes/ the eyes of the common good?

If this example is distasteful to you, fill in the blanks. It shouldn't make much difference what situation you use.

What if the only reason anyone's ever seen "the other side" via near-death experience is because of the last glimmer of consciousness, essentially filling the void with their idea of what would happen if they died?

We're all in the Bardo.

If you don't die, who is going to pay for retirement when your money runs out?

And if my own father's death is any indication, there is a time when it is better to be dead than alive.

we all are aliens for someone who lives on some other planet.

Neither is better in my eyes. In God's eyes and the common good's? I couldn't possibly say.

if i'd traveled back in a time machine - i'd questioned the following:

dark matter versus dark energy or the speed of light or the jesus times or dinosaur times

i dunno, it's like 4:20 AM.

Don't know but I have been told that a desire is not a sin, it only becomes a sin if you fulfill it.

Agreed. That's why they're equal in my eyes. Neither's actions are harmful.

I'm not looking for harmful. Perhaps a different example. 2 students both score 1550 on SAT. One through hard work and dedication. The other through natural ability with very little effort. Or 2 athletes, musicians, etc...

Basically, do you weigh effort in equal results? Do you penalize people for bare minimum? If you considered Mozart and Beethoven equals, would you add merit to Beethoven as an over achiever or deduct Mozart as an under achiever?

I don't mind bare minimum. Indeed I'm an advocate of bare minimum (or one lazy motherf*cker). It's worth remembering that everything in nature likes to occupy the lowest energy state possible - it's called the principle of minimum energy. Be it a hurricane, an earthquake, a supernova or black hole - it's all nature using the least amount of energy it can.